Super Mad at Everything All the Time

“Super Mad at Everything All the Time takes on the important subject of political culture, in particular, the political talk which results from the transformation of American political culture in the past several decades. While this change was the product of several factors, this book makes a compelling case that changes in media systems, broadly defned, is one of the primary factors that drove this change. While the subject is quite complex, Dagnes’ argument and writing makes the book an accessible, and importantly, highly interesting read.” —Jody Baumgartner, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, East Carolina University, USA

“Professor Dagnes has written an essential guide for anyone interested in understanding the polarized media landscape in the age of Trump.” —Howard Polskin, President, Founder and Chief Curator, TheRighting

“Super Mad at Everything All the Time expertly delineates the deep political divisions in the country. But, we did not get here by accident. Dr. Dagnes pro- vides a clear and compelling examination of the history of the how and the why that have brought us to this point in our political and media discourse. An out- standing contribution to the feld.” —Danilo Yanich, Professor, School of Public Policy & Administration, University of Delaware, USA Alison Dagnes Super Mad at Everything All the Time

Political Media and Our National Anger Alison Dagnes Department of Political Science Shippensburg University Shippensburg, PA, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-06130-2 ISBN 978-3-030-06131-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06131-9

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018966127

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affliations.

Cover design by Fatima Jamadar

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland For Jerry Mileur Acknowledgements

I feel tremendously lucky to be able to thank so many great people who have helped me with this book. Being a professor at Shippensburg University gives me a big advantage because extraordinary faculty, students, and staff surround me. Big thanks go to my colleagues, especially Niel Brasher who assisted in myriad ways at every step, Mark Sachleben, Lonce Bailey, Curtis Berry, Cynthia Botteron, Kara Laskowski, James Greenburg, and Lawrence Eppard, who offered critiques and advice with frequency and kindness, and Sara Grove who consistently set the bar high in friendship, mentor- ship, and collegiality. My students went above and beyond the call of their duties, and several undergraduates willingly read chapter drafts to point out words that were grating: Thanks to Thomas Fisher, Ryan Oister, Madeleine Lampert, Alex Ruquet, Sara Smith, Dylan Nichols, Emily Keating, and especially Adam Friscia. Our graduate students Julia Frey, Madeline Mulhall, Heather Day, Amber Quivers, and Matt Osenbach were superstars. Special thanks go to Audrey Mcgarrell who created the single best book cover that could not be used because of copyright laws, but trust me: It was perfect. Several Ship alumni including Tom Dunn and Megan Silverstrim assisted me throughout the process. Tyler Williams probably helped this writing project more than anyone did, and his interest, guidance, and wise counsel are greatly appreciated.

vii viii Acknowledgements

Special recognition goes to Stephanie Jirard and Marin Hagen who offered abundant and substantial support in gracious ways. Heather Lennon, Michelle Ephraim, Rachel Hamilton, and Eleanne Hattis sup- plied kindness and advice. Much gratitude goes to Eunice Johnson who was an inspiration and a source of encouragement when I needed it most. Thanks to the comedian John Mulaney who does not know me, but who nonetheless gave me the book title and additional inspiration throughout the text. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers who read and critiqued, and a special thanks to whomever suggested I explain my methodology more carefully because that inspired the Preface. In this next section of the book, I detail each of my interviews with journalists, scholars, and political professionals to explain the substantive assistance of each expert. I thank the interviewees here en masse for their time and insight, and go into specifcs in the next chapter. Finally, the ultimate thanks go to my family: My father, Dennis Spokany, is my hero who supplies endless wit, wisdom, and uncondi- tional love. My sister Monica Gocial makes my sun rise and set every single day. My daughters Maddy and Caroline are my whole heart, and my husband Pete is my collaborator in all and the walking embodiment of kindness, which makes everything worthwhile. Although everyone named here would probably take the blame for any mistakes in this book, all of that falls to me. Contents

1 Two Truths 1

2 Upping the Anti’s: 50 Years of Vilifying Intellectuals, the Government, and the Media 27

3 Money + Tech Problems: Technological Development, = Financial Imperatives, and the Ensuing Media Landscape 75

4 Us vs. Them: Political Polarization and the Politicization of Everything 119

5 Negative Objectives: The Right-Wing Media Circle and Everyone Else 167

6 Consequential, Problematic and Perhaps Resolvable 219

Index 241

ix Prologue

In the fall of 2015, I was waiting for my daughter at her volleyball practice, which was held in a community gym in my small, central Pennsylvania town. This was Rec League volleyball so a small group of 13-year-olds was practicing their serves and spikes, and an even smaller number of parents were sitting in bleachers waiting for their children. There were so few parents in attendance, none of whom I knew, that I was able to sit alone at the top of one set of bleachers and grade papers. Out of the periphery of my vision, I saw a man whom I did not know turn to look up at me. He had been sitting much lower down on the next set of seats, and when he moved his whole body to face me I raised my head and made eye contact. He opened his mouth and spoke:

“I’ll tell you what. This country is gonna be MUCH better when Donald Trump is president.”

I was caught totally off guard, completely surprised, without an idea of what to say. I must have stared at him blankly because he went on:

“And I’ll tell you what. When Obama was elected, I KNEW this country was gonna fail and it did. You know why? Because he’s not an American. And he don’t even salute the troops!”

xi xii Prologue

At this point, I was able to get out a “What?” and the man continued:

“I gotta friend at Letterkenny [Army Depot] and he says Obama don’t even salute the troops and my friend served in Iraq and he knows that Obama don’t even salute the troops and he’s not a real American.”

I realized at this point that my mouth was actually hanging open because I was fabbergasted; I could not fgure out where this came from, who this guy was, or how to respond. Luckily, I did not need to reply because the man was wound up and spinning like a top:

“And I’ll tell you what. I got nothing against women. I like women. My boss is a woman and she don’t take no bullshit from no one and I like women. You know what I’m saying? So I don’t got no problem with a woman president. Not Hillary -- she’s shady as fuck. But a woman president? I got no problem with that. You know who would make a good woman president?”

Blank stare.

“Sarah Palin.”

In what felt like ten minutes but was probably closer to two or three, my new friend railed against the Democrats, Obama, “illegals,” and Hillary in a stream of expletive-laden vitriol and anger. I was dumbfounded and literally rendered speechless, so totally thrown by his fury and by the topic that I couldn’t fnd the words to respond to a single thing he said. As abruptly as he began, the man stopped talking, motioned to the stack of graded papers on my lap, and asked: “You a teacher?” I nodded. “That’s cool.” And with that, he turned back around and focused once more on his iPhone. I could not believe what had just happened, so I did the only thing a smarty-pants professor would do: I went home and I blogged about it. The next day, I told the story to my students and they laughed (especially at the “Hillary is shady” part) while they nodded and said “Yeah. That’s nuts. But he’s right, Donald Trump is great,” which pulled me up short again. Wait. What? I was well-versed and well-read in American politics, the system, and the politicians; I knew the lay of the political land. Furthermore, I read The Washington Post and The New York Times PROLOGUE xiii every day. I had push alerts on my phone from CNN and Politico. Donald Trump was great? The guy who said Mexicans were rapists? The guy who said John McCain was not a hero because he was a prisoner of war? The guy who made fun of the disabled, used explicitly racist and misogynistic language? That Donald Trump? What was I missing? Turns out, I was missing a segment of the country who got their news from different places than I did. At the time this happened, I acknowledged (in my blog post) that I lived in a flter bubble where very few people thought about Sarah Palin anymore. I admitted that we were deeply divided as a country and I wrote: “We have stopped talking to each other and have started talking past one another.” At least I got that right. Almost everything else, I got wrong. I woefully underestimated the power of the media, especially the outlets that I did not consume. I did not watch Fox News, but then again I did not watch any cable news because it was all too howling and loud. I did not read Breitbart and Drudge, but I did not read Huffngton Post or Daily Kos either. I fg- ured that my media choice did not matter, because we were debating the same issues from varying perspectives using the same information and the same set of facts. I was very wrong. In order to fnd out why I was so far afeld, I decided to re-examine the modern political media system. I have spent the better part of my life consuming, working within, and researching the American political media, but the past decade brought mammoth changes to a system I thought I understood. There were explanations that, taken individu- ally, were correct but incomplete. I tried to plot a course where I could examine the whole media and put the pieces together in a way that made sense, but it was a mess. I was lost, dissatisfed with my results, unhappy with the confusion I was creating in my own mind. This is where the wisdom and kindness of a sexagenarian named Eunice saved the day. In 2012, Eunice and I sat together at a community dinner where I was brought in as the guest speaker, there to talk about that year’s elec- tions. We so thoroughly enjoyed our time together that we made plans to meet for coffee, and our conversations have continued for years. As I was struggling through this mess of information, I confded to Eunice that I felt disoriented. She offered me the piece of advice that changed the trajectory of the research project: interview an expert. Eunice argued that if I could fnd that one key authority to question, they could help guide me through the topic. This may sound like an easy recommenda- tion, but it was more prescient than Eunice could have imagined. She xiv Prologue was right: I needed expert advice to help me make sense of this, and because the American political media are so expansive in size and power, I realized that I needed more than one expert. I needed several dozens. I sorted the general areas to investigate and I let my interview request letters fy. I began to talk with Communications Directors from think tanks because I (correctly) assumed they would understand the schol- arly nature of my query. I was lucky enough to speak with three people from important DC institutes: Khristine Brookes, Communications Director at Cato; Bridget Lowell, Communications Director at Urban; and Darrell West, Vice President at Brookings. I went into these interviews without a set of specifc questions, because I had no idea where the research was going. Instead, I asked them what they thought of the modern media system in Washington and how they did their job. Ms. Brookes led me through the new ways that think tanks engage the public and opened my eyes to the amplifcation of discourse because of all the competition for airtime. Ms. Lowell and I talked about the importance of authenticity and the new nature of data-driven journalism. And Dr. West had a lovely and brilliant observation about how to plant the seeds to change our angry discourse which informed my conclusions while it also gave me hope. The answers I received from the think tank leaders led me to interview three more communications experts, these from interest groups. I spoke with Joe Bonfglio, President of the Environmental Defense Action Fund; Kaylie Hanson-Long, Communications Director NARAL Pro-Choice America; and Jason Pye, who had been the Comms Director at FreedomWorks but shot up the ladder to become Vice President of Legislative Affairs. Mr. Bonfglio and I had one of the best conversations in memory about the state of the political parties and the new strength of activists. I have incorporated his insight into more academic talks than I can count, and although I could not use it all in this work, I could write another book just to reference his insight. Ms. Hanson- Long discussed the different communication techniques of liberals and conservatives, and the way interest groups are increasingly personalizing their messaging. I was connected to Mr. Pye by my former student Tyler Williams, and my visit to FreedomWorks was one of my favorites, even though everyone there cheerfully acknowledged that I was not exactly their target audience. Pye led me through the wilds of an activist group with candor and insight so incredibly useful, I decided to open the book with him. PROLOGUE xv

Thanks to these frst interviews, I had a sharper focus and moved toward the issue of polarization. I met with political ad guys from both sides of the aisle: Julian Mulvey (Democrat), a partner at Mulvey Devine Longabaugh, and from Guy Harrison and Brad Todd, both partners at OnMessage (Republican). Our discussions were valuable as they helped me to understand our divisions and the resulting changes to the profession of politics. Mr. Mulvey and I discussed authenticity in a highly mediated world, and he had incredible insight into the generational dif- ferences of various audiences; his take on polarization was one of the best I have heard and I return to his perception regularly. Guy Harrison from OnMessage was introduced to me by another Ship alumnus, Tom Dunn. Tom and Guy talked to me about how they make ads in an age of cord cutting, how Democrats speak collectively and Republicans speak indi- vidually, and how every election cycle brings innovation and new chal- lenges. Brad Todd, fresh off his own book tour, described to me the new Republican landscape in terms that I had not considered, and now I cite him with frequency. He expanded on Mr. Harrison’s discussion of advertising innovation and told me about the new models for mobile. It was a delight to talk with my former student, Tom Dunn, about his work and he gave me a skillful analogy that I use throughout the book and in all of my teaching about American politics: You gotta put your jersey on and know what team you’re rooting for. I learned several things from all of these gentlemen: that keeping up with the technology is a necessity, that the new media system is a blessing and a curse, and that our smartphones give up more information about us than we could have predicted. I knew that I needed to ground this work in what academics call “the literature,” and so I decided to read a hearty number of books and jour- nal articles and then interview scholars in this feld. I was fortunate to speak with some of the biggest names in American political behavior, all of whom patiently answered my questions about their work. This gave me even more to think about. I spoke with the Doctors Kevin Arceneaux from Temple University, Lara Brown of George Washington University, Lisa George from Hunter College, Roderick Hart from the University of Texas at Austin, Matthew Levendusky of the University of Pennsylvania, and Michael Wagner from the University of Wisconsin. Vin Arceneaux and I talked about social media and how our flter bubbles can lead to political overconfdence, and he made the prescient observation that our social identities have been so politicized it is now diffcult to see another side of an argument. Lara Brown provided fascinating historical xvi Prologue context for our current political era and layered in the technology and fnancial imperatives of the media in a brilliant overview. Dr. George offered a priceless summary of the economics of the news media, trac- ing the development of advertising through the centuries to explain how to follow the money in an increasingly complicated commercial indus- try. Dr. Hart was the frst person to make the observation that President Trump’s tweets were modern day press releases, something repeated to me several times throughout my interviews, but since Rod was the frst to note this I give him full credit. Rod’s consideration was rooted in an optimism that was rare throughout my research, and he argued that the strength of our democracy could be found in our grassroots discussions.1 Dr. Levendusky and I spoke about the effects of the partisan media, what the next big thing would be, and how the political system has changed. Michael Wagner noted that journalists found “costly” talk to be news- worthy, and that one solution is to make an effort to listen more. I also spoke with David Levinthal who is a reporter and editor at the Center for Public Integrity, and who writes about the confuence of money in politics. He was especially instructive on the topic of academic funding by conservative billionaires and led me to even more research in this area. All of these scholars helped put the research into context and con- nect the theories with practice. After that, I interviewed journalists from print, television, and digital outlets. In the process, I scored newsroom tours from Paul Farhi from the Washington Post and Sara Fischer, Media Reporter at Axios, and I took up too much time in the Baltimore Sun’s newsroom with David Zurawik. Mr. Farhi and I spoke about money in media, and he gave me the quote I used as the title of a conference paper: “Everyone hates the media but they still use it.” He also gave me a positive spin on the benefts of a fattened media system, which was supremely helpful. Sara Fischer shared her encyclopedia-level media knowledge, which provided the structure for much of this book, and her observations about the right-wing media circle were invaluable. I could have easily spoken to Dr. Zurawik for weeks to gain even more from his instrumental insights into biases and balances. His faith in journalism as a profession was encourag- ing and delightful. I spoke with Eliana Johnson, the National Politics Reporter from Politico, who graciously gave me her time and attention as she was in between running down a story and appearing on Meet the Press. Ms. Johnson PROLOGUE xvii provided me with a great lesson in modern Washington media, and Lloyd Grove, Editor at Large of The Daily Beast, told me about gatekeeping and the value of traditional journalism norms. Matthew Sheffeld, Staff Writer at Salon, offered a mastery of conservative ideological philosophy that matched his knowledge of the modern media and was vital in my framing of conservative and right-wing media. I went “home” to my alma mater C-SPAN and spoke with the award-winning Brian Lamb, and we discussed money and the new rules of journalism, which veer far away from what they used to be. He gave me a copy of Walter Williams’ “Journalist’s Creed,” which hangs in the National Press Club and which I quote at the end of this book. I talked at great length with my fellow SPANial, Steve Chaggaris, who was the Political Director of CBS News at the time, and I interrupted the birthday celebration of CBS White House Correspondent Major Garrett2 who provided experienced opinions about the distrust in the media today, as well as a thorough explanation of the current broadcast news environment. I even interviewed someone from the CNN investigative unit who asked to remain anonymous because the climate in Washington had so politicized working for CNN. Armed with information about the ways of Washington and the mean- ing of the messages, I continued my queries to drill down on the right- wing media. I had learned an incredible amount from everyone up to this point, and I realized that there was a separation between the right- wing media and the rest of the media. To fgure out what was happening and why, I spoke with three tremendous experts in this area: Jared Holt, Research Associate at People for the American Way; Howard Polskin, writer of TheRighting, a daily tip sheet that aggregates the top stories on the right-wing media Web site; and Will Sommer, Reporter at The Daily Beast and the author of The Right Richter, a tip sheet on the right- wing media. Jared Holt was especially helpful in our discussion about deliberate efforts to delegitimize the mainstream media, and shortly after our interview, he single-handedly brought down Alex Jones from social media (Marcotte 2018). Will Sommer and I discussed epistemic closure, high-context culture, and the rise of conspiracy theories. He also checked and added to my diagram of the right-wing media circle, which proved to be instrumental in my research. And Howard Polskin provided me with enough material to write a second book, especially in the area of topics covered within the right-wing media circle, the politics of fear, and the effect of a polarized media on our broader political culture. These interviews were more explanatory and instructive than Eunice could have xviii Prologue predicted. What had been a tangle of ideas had come into clear focus. It took two years for me to make sense of it all but Eunice was correct: I had needed experts to show me the way. It is my greatest hope that I made sense of their wisdom and can add productively to the larger discussion about political media in a polarized age. After all of these interviews and after more research, I found that there was not a two-sided political media system which divided news and commentary into left and right. Instead, a small, tightly closed circle contains right-wing media outlets. With the exception of Fox News, which is the focal point of the circle, these outlets are not journalistic: Their mission is not to uncover diffcult truths or break news and speak truth to power. They have a negative objective, which is to cast aspersions on those they oppose. They provide commentary and analysis, some of which is bril- liantly written and argued, practically none of which is self-effacing. Those within the right-wing media circle compete against one another only for an audience, and even in this regard, they are generous with their support of one another, featuring players from other organizations on varying platforms. They do not challenge others within their sphere; they do not race to break news that contradicts the narrative or politicians that they support. They have their own set of facts, truths, and explanations, and these do not match up at all with those outside the circle. I was able to more fully understand the anger of the man from the volleyball practice in 2015. He is one of many Americans who feel ignored by politics, by the “establishment” leaders in Washington and the media that cover them. The news and information my volleyball buddy receives is very different from the media I consume, which is highly problematic because we can- not communicate effectively without a common set of ideas, facts, and truths. We do not have to agree with one another politically, but we should be able to have a conversation that is informed by the same reality. He and I live in the same town, but we might as well live in different countries because we are so deeply divided in our understandings of the world around us. Our sharpest resemblance is how angry we both are, although we are angry about different things. We are not alone in our frustration and it feels like the whole country is annoyed, indignant, and unwilling to compromise. The rest of this book explains how we became so furious. My hope is that by understanding the reasons we have grown so divided, we can try to unite, if only to lower the political temperature and repair our discord.

Shippensburg, USA Alison Dagnes PROLOGUE xix

Notes 1. I strongly recommend Roderick Hart’s book, Civic Hope, which expands on this point. 2. True story.

Reference Marcotte, Amanda, “Meet Jared Holt, the guy who’s getting Alex Jones kicked off the internet”. Salon, August 8, 2018. https://www.salon. com/2018/08/08/meet-jared-holt-the-guy-whos-getting-alex-jones-kicked- off-the-internet/.